Mike Tyson Tattoos

My problem is simple.. do not misrepresent the facts, which is what seems to be the case here.. How can you have a H1 and not get paid??? Do you have any other logical reasoning? If the person has H1 and is not getting paid then there can only be two lawful situations: 1) person is on leave of absence, which is without pay or 2) has not yet started the job.

To answer your questions, yes my wife came here on H4 but she just did not approach a consultant for a job.. instead she went to school, got her degree, applied for jobs, gave interviews and finally got a job. BTW her company does not work with consultants, as it is not an IT company but a finance Big4. They used their own attorney to file for her H1. As luck could have, her application was not even considered as it did not come in the lottery draw. This happened twice.. Later we got our EAD and she started working with it. And yes, I know few more people who went through the same thing.. and all of them went to school in the US.

sathweb, I don't have anything against you or anyone else here on IV.. I feel bad when people look down on H1 visa holders as they think everyone is exploiting the system, which you know is not true. Some people misrepresent their cases and we all get bad name.

Sorry man, allow me take back my words, if i can. It was not my intention to encourage any illegal activity. Its my mistake. I think I did not grasp the complete context of the conversation.

I have been here for past 9 years, working for the same company, I never was out of work even for a single day, nor I encourage it. I think I read your answer, reacted a bit too early. Forgive me.

(I guess waiting for green card forever making me blind or something, how can I have misread what you wrote)

Quote:
Originally Posted by unitednations
If companies used h-1b the way it is supposed to be written then really the only people who would get one would be OPT candidates who joined while they are on OPT.

That is not true - those who are qualified and for whom a job is available in the US will eventually make it here. If the requirement is genuine, then the company will go to India and get that skilled labor. Big companies have been known to hire talent internationally.

No way; would an H-1b get filed for a person who is outside the country. Consulting companies would like to adhere to the laws. However; when their existing employees keep referring friends or friends of friends then as a protective measure they are forced to file the H-1b; or they risk losing the existing employee to someone else.

Your argument that some consulting companies would like to adhere to laws, but are forced not to because they fear the employee will leave is sufficient reason for those companies to be shut down. There is no excuse for breaking the law, and that too intentionally. It is obvious from your argument these companies are greedy and give the rest of the H-1B visa holders a bad name.

Keep in mind; the big problem currently is "transfers" and "extensions". Not so much quota cases. USCIS is not keeping up with the business norms. Many of the consulting companies do not have agreements with end clients and end clients will generally not give letters to consulatants to verify that they are actually working there.

The only time I have seen a consulting company file an H-1b for a person (transfer) and they are not on project; is that the employee has lost the current job or their company wants them to go back home and they do not want to go back home. Employee will do everything possible not to go back.

It is understandable that an individual will do whatever he can to better his social and economic situation. But it has to be done within the limits of the law. In your example, the consulting company should just say no. However, the company is greedy and wants to make money from the unfortunate situation of the poor guy who just lost his job.

I always go back through an example I used to see in the work place. Two people at the same level and one has a bigger cubicle. Other person with smaller cubicle complains. End result is that they don't make his cubicle bigger but make the other persons smaller.

Complaining or pointing fingers at one subsection of people using h-1b or greencards and getting uscis/lawmakers to fix it; it doesn't stop there. Eventually; it will come onto you. Many people on these forums/threads don't care about h-1b but only greencards. Do all of you think that it will only stop at H-1b's and won't spill over to greencards?

Are you are asking the immigrant community to condone the abusive/illegal practice of a subsection of people because the USCIS will come after everybody? On the contrary, I would rather they looked at every case closely to ensure that there is a valid job offer and no abuse. And it seems that they are now doing just that. This would ensure a smooth process those who follow the law - so there is nothing to fear whether it is H-1B or Green card application.


Having said that, the immigrant community should try to request the USCIS with some administrative fixes where the H-1B visa holder is not immediately out of status when he loses his job. If they give a grace period of three months or so, then one cae join either look for a new job, or wrap things up and go home. In the absence of such pressure, H-1B visa holders are less likely to find themselves in the hands of abusive consulting companies. The changes to H-1B proposed by Dick Durban and Co. only focussed on protecting american workers (which is all good). BUT, there was nothing in there that would protect the foreign worker's interest if he lost his job. We need to impress upon the congress or USCIS to give some grace period (which to my mind should be an easy administrative fix).



Maybe we are getting off the topic.

USCIS is giving a hard time for h-1b's.


If vemont service center:

ensure LCA is for client location and company location.

ensure that you can get a legitimate letter/contract from place you are actually working. ensure letter/contract says that the terms (duration) is extendable (under the law; uscis only has to approve the h-1b until the PO finishes if it is less then three years).

For companies: Cancel h-1b for people who have left. Cancel h-1b's for people who have not joined (uscis in their rfe's are frequently quoting number of h-1b's filed and comparing to current head count).

for california service center:

companies need to analyze their DE-6 and look to see who hasn't been paid the lca wage for all four quarters. Give proper/proactive explanations for people where it is not obvious why they weren't paid proper lca wage.

get legitimate client letter/purchase order from end client. Ensure that when filing H-1b; the LCA covers the client location. USCIS will generally not accept a new LCA covering the location after the h-1b has been filed.

Ensure the numbrer of active h-1b's is close to your headcount. If people haven't joined or aren't going to join; cancel h-1b's immediately.

For consulate: do not ever give fake purchase order/client letter. Consulates are very smart that they know major companies do not give such letters. They are frequently referring cases to department of state in kentucky to contact clients who wrote the letters. If client doesn't confrm (ie., HR at client company) then it is a very, very big problem for all people concerned.

For extensions; file as early as possible so you don't have issues with your drivers license, etc.

USCIS relies on a lot of case precdece to deny cases. many times they are misapplying these cases and going outside the law what is really required. In motion to reopens; california is very quick in givingin another decision. However; vermont sits on it for many, many months and they very rarely change their decisions.

When changing client locations then as a minimum get a new LCA but if you really want to cover yourself then consider amending h-1b for new location.

UN,
am always puzzled how H1B is valid also for outsourcing the h1b-employee to another company (like sub-sub-.....sub-contracting) ?

wasnt h1b intended for a inhouse job rather than a job at a client company ?

EAD paper filed at TSC.

Mailed: 7/2/08
Receipt Date: 7/3/08
Card Production Ordered Email: 8/13/08

gc_on_demand,

Please dont mix priority date with quota.
spouse's priority date will be the same as primary priority date.

We are discussing about quota here.

I know Spouse's PD will be same as Primary's PD . But good for people who filled 485. If person has latest PD let says Aug 2007 (Eb2 india ) .. Under Eb category he may be able to file 485. But dependent may not be able to file 485 as Family quota is backlogged. Family quota also has PD and category. Under which category spouses of primary will fall ? F2A ? F2B ? do you know this ?

http://thevoice.name/?p=2351

People spending time on this thread, why not spend 5 minutes to print and sign a letter, then spend 82c and mail one copy each to USCIS and IV.

Do you not like the idea of 3 year long EAD's and more job portability which will come from a revised definition of "same or similar" job description??

Under the latest interpretation, EB3-I India will not get benefit until EB3-ROW gets benefit. So EB3-ROW benefiting will eventually benefit Eb3-I. That is the logical background.


The other two issues , which provided temporary relief, would have been redundant If we had recaptured the visas. Most of us, across the EB category/Country, would have been current or near current , rendering these issues redundant.

IV still went ahead with it (I am glad) knowing fully well recapture is difficult issue.

So no harm in EB3-I seeking temporary relief while still joining forces on the recapture issue.

Now you need to explain How EB3-I seeking favorable interpretation of spill over distribution undermines "Recapture effort". How are these related??

Chmur; I appreciate your post. For the sake of a discussion could you share what is the temporary relief that you are seeking. I am curious to know the details. Is it

1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.

Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.

I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers

CFR22 is not the law. INA is the law. I could not find it in INA, that is all we need.

Honestly, I dont care if they are eligible for FB2A.
All I care is eb-dependents are not eligible for EBquota.

why are you quoting and supporting the official mis interpretation above the actual law ?



Is it still not clear for you? eb-dependents are NOT eligible for F2A.
So we have to follow the regulation and the regulation (CFR22) mentioned specifically that eb-dependents are eligble for EB-category. Regulations and interpretations are there for a reason, and it has to be followed when law is not clear.

I agree that INA doesnt specifically says that, but at the same time INA specifically rules out eb-dependents from F2A also. To be eligible for F2A you should be dependent of a permanent resident "at the time of application".

You should probably stream line your effort to not count eb-dependents in any visa-numbers (since neither the regulation or law is clear on that part).

You are still under a mis-concept that every word and sentence has to be quoted in "INA", and can ignore all official regulations and interpretations.

Contributed $50
Immigration Voice $50.00 02/13/2009 8MWS5-D1N6F

one can travel outside country......

btw somebody gave me a red dot on my posting about L1 facing issues....I was just letting people know what I've seen....no pun intended!

Thanks a lot. Please ask your friends and family to also contribute.

GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.

done. Thanks

I had sent an e-mail to the Chinese web site that posted this earlier. Didn't receive a response.

Thanks for posting, I will be there to represent IV.

Things are very different in India now compared to when I came to the US (1999). Infact, I might not have taken the decision to come to the US had conditions been what they are now i.e. economy, job situation etc.

That being said, its a personal choice for most people - based on family ties, job situation, field of work and the reason for coming to the US/leaving India.

It already does, if you have an approved I-140 based on your LC.

with LC sitting in BEC for 5 years or more it does not. There are many many people I know whose PD could not be recaptured because of the insane amount of time LC certifications used to take. With PERM its a 5 month + 15 day (if I-140 PP is restored) thing; in my time (gosh I feel like an oldtimer now) it was a 4-5 YEAR wait for LC, then another year for I-140 (as there was no PP). And in 2001-2003 not all companies that sponsored LCs survived to see what came out of that process, and the sponsored employees were left with nothing.

$100 - Transaction ID: 1GV95902XD022880S

Kudos to late july filers who got good news. Mine was received by F.Heinauer on July 30 11:23 am at NSC.......nothing yet.

If you look at what you dont have in life, you have NOTHING; If you look at what you have in life, you have EVERYTHING

I hope this helps:)

Paypal transaction ID for this payment is: 4P5189671W405652X

I send my Employment based I-485/I-765/I-131 application on June 29th 2007 and received at NSC on July 2nd 2007 (USPS Express mail tracking no. XXXX). It�s more than 100 days and I didn�t even received the Receipt Number for all the applications.

I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:

1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?

2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.

3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?

I liked the burning photocopies idea very much .This will surely work.


Please share if you come up with innovative ideas to make these rallies a huge success.